March 12, 2006

My Armitage as Mr. X Scenario

Well, I offered a scenario for how Ari could be Mr. X last week. Now I'm getting to the hard part--exploring how Armitage could be Mr. X, the source of Plame's identity for both Woodward and Novak.

But before I do that, let me clarify what I'm doing and why I'm doing it (and why I did the Ari scenario). I'm putting together what I consider a plausible scenario. I don't mean to claim this (or the Ari scenario) is true. Rather, it's a scenario in a futuring sense, an attempt to tell a possible story, to weigh how plausible it is and to explore what it might mean. Frankly, I'm writing this Armitage post from an awkward position. After eyeballing the Fitzgerald filing from the other day, I'm convinced that Armitage fits in the redactions better than any other name (here's a more recent attempt at the eyeballing we did 10 days ago for those who want to see the scans side-by-side). At the same time, I've been a confirmed Armitage skeptic, believing that Dick or Hadley or any number of other people are much more likely and that Armitage is very unlikely. And I don't believe anyone--certainly not the chief purveyors of the Armitage theory--have provided a plausible scenario for his leaks at all. So I should say I'm definitely not convinced of what follows; I'm just trying to understand how Armitage could be plausible.

Armitage's Character and Motives

I'll start then, with one of the chief reasons I've always been an Armitage skeptic. As I described in my December Armitage post (which has mysteriously reappeared, just in the last few days, after having spent most of the time since I wrote it in Typepad hell), any Armitage scenario needs to account for some well-known character traits.

Let me start by laying out the three Armitage characteristics that I
believe any story has to consider. Armitage is, by many accounts a
gossip. Which makes it possible that he shared this information with
Woodward just for fun. But, he is also very very good at negotiating
lethal bureaucratic infighting--he's not dumb, not by a long shot. And,
most importantly, he is absolutely, fiercely loyal, to Colin Powell
most of all, but also more generally to anyone he sees to be on
Powell's team.

There's a relevant episode in Woodward's Plan of Attack that illustrates what I mean:

In the days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, The New York Times ran a front page story on the debate in the Bush administration over whether to go after Iraq in the first wave of military attacks in the war on terrorism. Headlined "Bush's Advisers Split on Scope of Retaliation," the story reported Powell to be opposed, while Wolfowitz and Libby were listed as pressing the case for Iraq. It was an unusual appearance of [Libby's] name in the newspaper, and he was excruciatingly uncomfortable. The reporters had not called him for comment, and he felt the leak was "scandalous." He tried to tell others that the story was "untrue." Asked if it was "totally untrue," he responded with a lawyerly parsing of language: "It's not totally untrue, but untrue." He had not spoken about Iraq in the large NSC meeting but as he put it, "there were confabs on the margins."

Libby went to see Armitage. "I'm used to seeing Powell's name in print," Libby said. "I didn't like to see my name next to him, particularly in that context. And I don't have a dog in that fight."

"You want me to tell the secretary this?" Armitage asked.

"Please."

"I'll do it," Armitage said, "I'll do it faithfully, but it's not a personal fight. This is about business. And how we do the nation's business, Scooter." (50)

The episode (and another, in which Armitage goes on the record to better build the case for Powell's strength on Iraq) is a clear example of the way in which Libby and Armitage were competitors making sure their respective boss' and their own agenda had the upper hand in the public sphere. In this case, Libby realized he had been compromised, and he went to Armitage to complain. And Armitage clearly represents Powell's interests and treats this leak as a legitimate approach to defend Powell's position.

The contest between OVP and State was not just bureaucratic for Armitage. It was personal. Years before, when Ross Perot was opposing Armitage's nomination to be Secretary of the Army, Cheney didn't defend Armitage in the way Armitage expected. Armitage ended up blaming Cheney after he had to withdraw from his nomination.

In May 1989, with his nomination vote approaching, Armitage went to see Cheney. By Armitage's account, he asked the new defense secretary, "Are we going to win this thing? Are you ready for battle?" To Armitage's surprise, he got a cool, noncommittal answer. "I don't know." Cheney replied.

"It was the strangest thing I had ever heard," Armitage reflected many years later. "Where I come from, with [Defense Secretary Caspar] Weinberger and Powell, if you're on the team, you're on the team. I just needed him to say, 'Sure, we'll do whatever it takes to win it.' But he just said, 'I don't know,' I realized then that Dick Cheney is a little different. I wasn't his political equity."

[snip]

[Armitage] often treated even government work in Washington as an outgrowth of small unit combat: You kept watch over your close friends, they kept watch over you and together you went out into the night. (Rise of the Vulcans 175-6)

It's this Armitage I don't understand leaking Plame's name. Sure, Armitage worked the press as actively as anyone (including gossiping to the press). There are two reasons to believe that Wilson would be considered a member of Armitage's team, and therefore worthy of protection. First, Wilson had worked closely with Brent Scowcroft to lobby against the war; Armitage and Powell were involved in maximizing Scowcroft's opposition to the war, so it stands to reason that they also wanted to maximize Wilson's opposition to the war. Also, State had every reason to insist that it was right to doubt the Niger intelligence leading up to the war, particularly wrt Powell's UN speech. Therefore, Armitage would have every reason to present Wilson's trip as credible. So I just don't see Armitage leaking the Plame information maliciously.

How Did Armitage Know

Before I get into the actual scenario, I'd like to talk about how Armitage would know of Plame's identity. This is a long discussion, but I think it reveals some of the politics surrounding Armitage's possible role in this.

It is unlikely Armitage was in the loop of the OVP Get Wilson campaign, so he had to have learned of Plame's identity via another route. Purveyors of the Armitage theory have pointed to
two articles alleging that Armitage got a copy of the famous INR memo
when he returned from his trip in June 2003. They point to this Massimo Calabresi article posted July 31, 2005 and sourced to "sources familiar with the memo." (It's worth noting, Calabresi was Cooper's co-author on the original Time Plame article.)

The
previously undisclosed fact gathering began in the first week of June
2003 at the CIA, when its public-affairs office received an inquiry
about Wilson's trip to Africa from veteran Washington Post reporter
Walter Pincus. That office then contacted Plame's unit, which had sent
Wilson to Niger, but stopped short of drafting an internal report. The
same week, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman asked for and
received a memo on the Wilson trip from Carl Ford, head of the State
Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Sources familiar with
the memo, which disclosed Plame's relationship to Wilson, say Secretary
of State Colin Powell read it in mid-June.

Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage may have received a copy then too.

When
Pincus' article ran on June 12, the circle of senior officials who knew
about the identity of Wilson's wife expanded. "After Pincus," a former
intelligence officer says, "there was general discussion with the
National Security Council and the White House and State Department and
others" about Wilson's trip and its origins. A source familiar with the
memo says neither Powell nor Armitage spoke to the White House about it
until after July 6. John McLaughlin, then deputy head of the CIA,
confirms that the White House asked about the Wilson trip, but can't
remember exactly when. One thing he's sure of, says McLaughlin, who has
been interviewed by prosecutors, is that "we looked into it and found
the facts of it, and passed it on."

Now, we know from the indictment that several of these claims are inaccurate or misleading. The CIA public affairs office received a request from Pincus during the first week of June, sure. But someone at CIA also faxed materials relating to Wilson's trip to OVP on June 9, so the attention within CIA was not solely a response to Pincus' inquiry. This Time story asserts that Grossman asked for "a memo on the Wilson trip." It's not entirely clear what he asked for and why. Did Grossman request it only in response to Libby's May 29 questions about Wilson's trip? Or did Grossman ask for the broader report on State's disagreement with the White House about Niger and uranium that the memo is reported to provide? In either case, if reports are correct, then the memo is much broader than a narrow response to an inquiry about Wilson's trip. Calabresi's article portrays people within NSC, the WH, and State as learning about Wilson after Pincus' June 12 article; but we know several members of OVP had briefed on it before June 12 (indeed, someone at OVP had been a source for Pincus), and the attendees at Marc Grossman's June 11 or 12 briefing likely learned of Plame's identity independent of Pincus' article. Finally, McLaughlin's response may be just a dodge. But Libby's notes, at least, indicate Tenet (or whoever Dick's source is) passed on information on Plame before June 12.

In other words, this article is not fully accurate, and a lot of the inaccuracies serve to portray the discussions about Plame as a response to Pincus' article, rather than an effort that pre-dated Pincus' inquiries. The article shields the abundant activity at OVP related to Plame before June 12. Either Calabresi didn't have good sources at OVP and the WH, or his sources deliberately hid their own involvement in this affair. Which raises questions about the remaining assertions, about Powell's review of the memo and Armitage's possible review of it. Frankly, I think it leaves open a real possibility that Armitage and Powell, like those at OVP and NSC, already knew of Plame's identity before the INR memo, via another source. Or that they didn't yet know.

The purveyors of the Armitage theory rely on one more article to explain how Armitage knew of Plame's identity, this August 2005 LAT article sourced (at the end of the article) to "Times reporting, media reports, White House and Senate documents." This article more directly asserts that Armitage asked for and got the memo.

After
a June 12 Washington Post story made reference to the Niger uranium
inquiry, Armitage asked intelligence officers in the State Department
for more information. He was forwarded a copy of a memo classified
"Secret" that included a description of Wilson's trip for the CIA, his
findings, a brief description of the origin of the trip and a reference
to "Wilson's wife."

The
memo was kept in a safe at the State Department along with notes from
an analyst who attended the CIA meeting at which Wilson was suggested
for the Niger assignment. Those with top security clearance at State,
like their counterparts in the White House, had been trained in the
rules about classified information. They could not be shared with
anyone who did not have the same clearance.

(As a side note, the safe referenced here is almost certainly the INR SCI safe, which we know Bolton's folks were using at the time, and we know they had actually violated the protocols on access to the safe.) Now, it's not clear whether this passage of the LAT article is relying on Times reporting or media reports, but the only prior LAT article that references the memo and Armitage is this July 17 article, which states:

One former State Department official, who because of the
sensitive nature of the case asked not to be named, said that
the information on Plame in the memo was sparse, but that her
identity was known through other means in much of the
intelligence community, suggesting that the memo might not have
been the way her name spread among government officials — and
the media. As the former State Department official recalled, the
memo identified Plame only as "Wilson's wife" — it did not give
her first or last name, and it did not mention her undercover
status.

"The Niger uranium issue was a huge argument within the
intelligence community for over a year before the Novak column,"
the former official said. "So all the ins and outs of Niger
uranium were the subject of endless meetings and discussions and
food fights among people in the intelligence community and all
the details of it were well-known."

Once Wilson's July 6, 2003, article appeared, then-Deputy
Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage arranged for a copy of
the memo, which had been drafted earlier detailing the Niger
matter, to be forwarded to Powell, who was on his way to Africa
with Bush.

"There was never any feedback from anyone on the memo," the
former State Department official said. "The memo itself was
basically repeating common knowledge in the community."

If the August LAT article is based on the July article, then either
Hamburger and Efron (they wrote both) were asked in July not to include
the information on Armitage seeing the memo but they decided to include
it in the August article, their August reference to it is just a
poorly-worded rewriting of their July 2005 statement that Armitage
circulated the document in July 2003, or it comes from another source,
perhaps a media report.

In any case, this July 17 article strongly suggests it doesn't matter whether Armitage saw the INR memo. Folks "in the intelligence community" knew of her identity already, via other means. Consider--if Powell knew enough to leave the Niger assertions out of his UN speech in February 2003, it's likely he and Armitage were privy to some of these discussions.

All of which accords with this July 20, 2003 article, written by the AP's diplomatic writer and sourced
to "a retired department official." This article claims that Armitage
hadn't received the INR memo before July. It says that Armitage asked
that Powell receive some background on Wilson's trip, not that he
receive the INR memo per se.

Armitage called Ford after Wilson's op-ed piece in The New York Times
and his TV appearance on July 6, 2003 in which he challenged the White
House's claim that Iraq had purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger.

Armitage asked that Powell, who was traveling to Africa with Bush,
be given an account of the Wilson trip, said the former official.

[snip]

The June 2003 memo had not gone higher than Grossman until Wilson's
op-ed column for The New York Times headlined "What I Didn't Find In
Africa" and his TV appearance to dispute the administration.

Now, particularly given the date (these last two articles were written three days apart, in the time period surrounding Cooper's testimony when everyone believed the INR memo was the rosetta stone to this case), these two articles may rely on the same source and that source could very plausibly be Armitage himself (other possibilities are Grossman, former INR head Carl Ford, or Larry Wilkerson). If the source is Armitage, it's always possible he was lying to hide his own involvement. But the notion that the intelligence community, at least, knew of Plame's connection to Wilson long before the INR memo got drafted strikes me as logical (and note, this is different from knowing her covert status). Would Armitage be included in that intelligence community? Dunno. After Bolton had made several inadequately vetted speeches, Armitage started vetting Bolton's speeches personally. So he certainly got involved in these kinds of things.

In any case, I will assume that Armitage could have learned of some aspects of Plame's identity before the INR memo, independent of the OVP channels. This makes our work harder, frankly, because we don't know whether Armitage could be the source for Novak's knowledge that Plame was an operative or the name Plame; after all the INR memo only said Wilson's wife--who worked at CIA--recommended him for the trip. That's enough information to provide the leak to Woodward, but not enough to provide the leak to Novak (though Rove could be the source that she was an operative).

The Scenario

Which brings me to my scenario.

I suspect Woodward asked Armitage a question in response to Pincus' June 12 article. In his story on his role in the Plame leak, Woodward notes,

Pincus had published a story the day before, Sunday, June 22, about the Iraq intelligence before the war. I testified that I had read the story, which referred to the CIA
mission by "a former senior American diplomat to visit Niger." Although
his name was not used in the story, I knew that referred to Wilson.

This implies that Woodward did not know of Wilson's and Plame's identities before the June 12 article and that he learned of their identities between Pincus' June 12 and June 22 articles. As a reminder, here's a lengthy excerpt from Pincus' June 12 article.

A key component of President Bush's claim in his State of the Union
address last January that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program --
its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger -- was disputed by a
CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002,
according to senior administration officials and a former government
official. But the CIA did not pass on the detailed results of its
investigation to the White House or other government agencies, the
officials said.

The CIA's failure to share what it knew, which has not been
disclosed previously, was one of a number of steps in the Bush
administration that helped keep the uranium story alive until the eve
of the war in Iraq, when the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector
told the Security Council that the claim was based on fabricated
evidence.

A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result
of "extremely sloppy" handling of a central piece of evidence in the
administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But,
the official added, "It is only one fact and not the reason we went to
war. There was a lot more."

However, a senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger
problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq's alleged
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and its links to al
Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war.
"Information not consistent with the administration agenda was
discarded and information that was [consistent] was not seriously
scrutinized," the analyst said.

[snip]

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA
that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the
envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because
the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S.
government official said.

However, the CIA did not include details of the former ambassador's
report and his identity as the source, which would have added to the
credibility of his findings, in its intelligence reports that were
shared with other government agencies. Instead, the CIA only said that
Niger government officials had denied the attempted deal had taken
place, a senior administration said.

Imagine you're Mr. Insider Woodward and you read that passage in your colleague's article. You've got an interview scheduled with your good friend and great source, Richard Armitage. I can imagine the following exchange taking place:

Dick, Pincus' article said the CIA envoy was an Ambassador. Do you know who it is?

Yeah, Bob, it's Joe Wilson, the guy who took on Saddam during the Gulf War. He used to be stationed in Niger--facilitated the transition from military rule in 1999, too--so he's got a great relationship with the people named in the Niger documents. And he knows a lot about the uranium business.

Oh geez. He would know better than anyone. So how did Cheney's office manage to bury the intelligence?

Well, they're saying that Wilson's wife, who works at the CIA as a WMD analyst, suggested him for the trip. They're trying to suggest he wasn't qualified.

Pincus' article, after all, provides enough detail for Woodward to ask the salient questions about the trip. And given the relationship between Armitage and Woodward, I can imagine that Armitage would respond. And the nature of this--the fact that Armitage was supporting Wilson's perspective, would explain why Woodward believed (knowing just a bit of the story) that the leak wasn't malicious.

Remember, the investigation and the allegations that people have
printed about this story is that there's some vast conspiracy to slime
Joe Wilson and his wife, really attack him in an ugly way that is
outside of the boundaries of political hardball.

The evidence I had firsthand, small piece of the puzzle I acknowledge, is that that was not the case.

This imagined exchange raises two questions, though. Woodward claims that his first source only told him that,

Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction as a WMD analyst.

Did Armitage know that Plame had been a NOC? Did he know the name, Plame? In other words, did he know when he told Woodward that he was leaking highly protected information? Did he say Plame was an analyst to give his friend some valuable background without revealing Plame's real status? Perhaps Armitage thought it'd be okay to say that much, since Woodward was famously discreet with background information, and since he wasn't revealing the full extent of what he knew.

In any case, if Woodward raised the questions about Wilson in response to Pincus' June 12 article, it might explain why Woodward would tell Pincus (though Pincus doesn't remember this) of Plame's role at CIA.

Here's where things get interesting. Pincus publishes an article on June 22 that is largely about the NIE. For example, Pincus' article makes the following assertion.

A still-classified national intelligence report circulating within
the Bush administration at the time, however, portrayed a far less
clear picture about the link between Iraq and al Qaeda than the one
presented by the president, according to U.S. intelligence analysts and
congressional sources who have read the report.

The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which represented the
consensus of the U.S. intelligence community, contained cautionary
language about Iraq's connections with al Qaeda and warnings about the
reliability of conflicting reports by Iraqi defectors and captured al
Qaeda members about the ties, the sources said.

Then Woodward calls Libby on June 23 to arrange for his interview with Libby. Then meets with Libby on June 27. Here is Woodward's description of his interview with Libby:

I testified that on June 27, 2003, I met with Libby at 5:10
p.m. in his office adjacent to the White House. I took the 18-page list
of questions with the Page-5 reference to "yellowcake" to this
interview and I believe I also had the other question list from June
20, which had the "Joe Wilson's wife" reference.

I
have four pages of typed notes from this interview, and I testified
that there is no reference in them to Wilson or his wife. A portion of
the typed notes shows that Libby discussed the October 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction,
mentioned "yellowcake" and said there was an "effort by the Iraqis to
get it from Africa. It goes back to February '02." This was the time of
Wilson's trip to Niger.

When asked by Fitzgerald if
it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA
and was involved in his assignment, I testified that it was possible I
asked a question about Wilson or his wife, but that I had no
recollection of doing so. My notes do not include all the questions I
asked, but I testified that if Libby had said anything on the subject,
I would have recorded it in my notes. [my emphasis]

I highlighted the NIE materials for two reasons. Libby, recall, testified that he had leaked NIE information to journalists in July and June. So he may well have admitted he leaked to Woodward (which would mean he raised this Woodward interview himself). But this also raises the possibility that Libby was trying to use Woodward to push back against Pincus. After Woodward's conversation with Libby, did Woodward say anything to Pincus about the NIE?

Then there's the legalese parsing regarding the question of whether Woodward asked or Libby said anything about Wilson. "It was possible I asked a question about Wilson ... but ... I had no recollection of doing so." This leaves open any number of possibilities, including:

Woodward did ask but he wants to not recall because he doesn't want to be found responsible for playing a key link in this game of telephone

Woodward didn't ask, but he will say he does not recall to leave Libby an out, the possibility that Libby did hear of Plame from one journalist before he spoke to Russert

Woodward really doesn't think it came up, but he knows this issue will be scrutinized meticulously in court so he wants to leave himself an out

Any of those are possibilities. One thing I want to know, though, is did Woodward say anything that might tip Libby to the fact that he (Woodward) had talked to Armitage about this? For example, did Woodward say something as simple as, "yeah, Armitage told me about that" in response to Libby's comment about Niger and uranium?

Because if he did, it might explain the second leak to Novak. As with my Fleischer scenario, I think it highly likely that, during a conversation with Novak about Frances Fragos Townsend, Libby may have spurred Novak to start asking questions about who sent Wilson. And if he knew, from Woodward, that Armitage knew of Plame's role and had leaked it once, then he might be able to offer Novak some really specific coaching. Libby's instructions might go something like this:

One of the questions you need to be asking, Bob, is who decided to send Wilson. Now, I can't answer that for you. But if you ask Armitage, mention you've heard he knows, he may tell you.

Novak's approach with Armitage would be the exact opposite of Woodward's. It might go something like this:

So Libby tells me you know why the CIA sent Wilson. Why did they? I mean, he's a Democrat.

Bob, I don't know of anyone more qualified to investigate an issue relating to uranium in Niger. Wilson was stationed there, has good relations with the people named in the Niger documents, going back to when he helped ease the transition from military to cilvian rule in 1999. He knows the uranium business, from his time in Gabon as well as his time in Niger. And he knows Saddam, from dealing with him directly during the Gulf War.

But Libby says there's another reason he got sent.

Well, yeah, they say his wife, who works at CIA as an analyst in WMD, sent him. But that doesn't mean he's not qualified.

I suspect Armitage gave Novak enough to say what he did to Wilson's friend on July 8. "Wilson’s an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife,
Valerie, works for the CIA. She’s a weapons of mass destruction
specialist. She sent him." But not enough for what he wrote in his column.

One question I've got, though, is whether Armitage was speaking on background or not. With Woodward, he clearly was. Did Novak publish something Armitage had only told him on background? It would certainly explain why Fitzgerald isn't pursuing charges against Armitage. If Armitage told him something on background, expecting him not to publish the information, then he can't be accused of trying to expose Plame's identity. In fact, if this conversation were on background, it would almost certainly take any IIPA charges against Armitage off the table, because it would clearly rule out an intent to leak Plame's status.

For now, though, I''m going to assume one more thing. I'm going to assume Armitage told Novak that Plame was involved in sending Wilson. But that Armitage didn't tell Novak Plame was covert and Armitage didn't tell Novak Plame's name.

Because, if Rove, not Armitage, leaked the truly incriminating details of Plame's status, it would answer some of the excellent objections raised by commentor KM the other day:

Again, I could see the cabal steering journalists to Armitage in the
hopes that he spills the beans at some point, thereby giving the cabal
the break it needed. But then why does the cabal wait so damn long to
out Armitage? This is a serious problem for anyone making a case for
Armitage's role in this case whereby (a) Armitage and the cabal aren't
on the same page (e.g. Armitage leaks "casually" or accidentally) and
(b) the cabal knows or very strongly suspects that
Armitage leaked.

Consider. If Armitage is immune from prosecution on IIPA charges and knows he didn't tell Novak of Plame's status, then he effectively knows that Rove is guilty of the IIPA charge. That Rove is the one who told Novak she was covert.

I suspect that, if Armitage ever goes public with his own role in this leak, then it will make it clear that Rove is the one who is guilty of violating the IIPA.

Up until Libby's indictment, it is in everyone's best interest in keeping Armitage's role silent. Armitage doesn't want to be implicated at all, so he'd just as soon keep quiet. Fitzgerald wants him to keep quiet because if he goes public, it may close off some angles for prosecution, and it will tell the cabal how much Fitzgerald has on them. Libby wants Armitage to stay silent because he knows Armitage will point right back to Libby. And Rove, especially, wants Armitage to keep quiet, because Armitage could single-handedly and publicly counter Rove's lies.

Of course, things have changed, because now that Libby is facing a perjury indictment and not a conspiracy to out Plame indictment, Armitage's involvement--particularly his earlier leaking to Woodward--can only help Libby. Armitage's earlier leak to Woodward is about the only hope that Libby can plausibly claim that all the journalists were talking about this.

Woodward tried to get Armitage to release him twice. Once in 2004, I speculate, when Pincus was forced to talk, Woodward was worried that Pincus would say that Woodward had told him of Plame's identity. And once in 2005 when it became clear that Libby and Rove were implicating journalists in the leak--Woodward wanted to come clean to make sure he wasn't incriminated by Libby and Rove. Both times, Armitage assured Woodward that his leak wasn't really relevant, particularly since Armitage hadn't passed word of Plame's covert status to Woodward.

But then two things made Woodward get really worried. First, he learned the week before Fitzmas that Armitage had also been a source for Novak, which made him doubt Armitage's reassurances (and tell Len Downie he was involved). Second, when he saw the chronology in the indictment, he realized that Libby would likely raise the June 27 interview, that Libby would try to suggest that Armitage had told him of Plame's identity.

So Armitage and Woodward came forward, largely in an attempt to pre-empt Libby's expected claim that Woodward told him of Plame's identity.

Answering Questions

This scenario would answer some questions about the things Woodward has said. For example, it would really clarify why, in this exchange, Woodward said he "wished" Libby were the leaker:

Ms. BROWN: Well I think Andrea hit the nail on the head, meaning that
everyone on the inside, with the exception of Armitage, was a Cheney
guy. Now there is a hitch, and--and we've been talking about this, but
Joe Wilson, Ambassador Joe Wilson, has a book that's out now, which
goes after Cheney's top guy: Scooter Libby, his chief of staff, who
is--also has a long history with many of the other people who have been
advising the president. And it--there's an ongoing investigation into
who leaked Wilson's wife's name, an undercover CIA agent, to reporters
and made it public. And his is pointing the finger at Scooter Libby in
his book.

Mr. WOODWARD: Does--does he have any evidence, though? Or is this just a guess, surmised?

Ms. BROWN: It is--he...

Mr. WOODWARD: I wish it was Scooter Libby.

After all, Armitage is a friend, Libby is more manipulative and closed. If Libby were the leaker, it would absolve Armitage--and his leakee, Woodward--of their involvement in this.

This scenario would expain, too, why Woodward never believed that there was damage done, that Plame was covert. As he described to Wolf, his source presented Plame's role as that of an analyst, someone who wasn't covert.

WOODWARD: Good question. And specifically said that -- the source did
-- that she was a WMD, weapons of mass destruction, analyst. Now, I've
been covering the CIA for over three decades, and analysts, except --
in fact, I don't even know of a case. Maybe there are cases. But
they're not undercover. They are people who take other information and
analyze it.

And so -- and if you were there at this moment
in mid-June when this was said, there was no suggestion that it was
sensitive, that it was secret.

MATTHEWS:
There is a crime on the books now. Just so we know what -- there is a
statute that punishes someone who gives away the undercover identity of
an FBI agent.

WOODWARD: Intentionally, and a law written because
Philip Agee back in the `80s was listing all the people who were
undercover agents.

Novak has explained this, Bob Novak, who
wrote the original story, and said, he was told this woman, Joe
Wilson`s wife, was a weapons of mass destruction analyst in the CIA. He
called her an operative because that`s one of the terms he uses in his
column. He didn`t know. And...

After all, Woodward knows he was told Plame was an analyst. Which might make him more likely to believe that Novak was told exactly the same thing.

What I don't get, though, is Viveca Novak's role. I think it highly likely that Luskin was involved in her reporting on Woodward. But in this scenario, I suggest Rove has a huge disincentive for Armitage's identity to be exposed. Why would Luskin have gotten Vivnovka involved in the Woodward story if Armitage were the source?

Comments

Armitage wasn't THE source, he was A source. But I'd bet my house that IF he mentioned to Woodward that Plame worked for the CIA, he was damned careful not to say in what capacity. That wasn't pertinent to the "gossip" that Plame had sent Wilson to Niger and Armitage would have to know such a disclosure is illegal, so why would he have risked it? He didn't care or even know about the "Smear Wilson" campaign. That leaves Rove as the sole source for the crucial information that would trigger a criminal charge -- that Plame was a covert agent.

Nice summary, EW. Now, for the question that still keeps bothering me about Armitage. Why is Bob Novak so absolutely sure Bush knows about the leak by Armitage? I can't figure a Bush-Armitage link that would give Novak such certainty, unless of course Bush himself told Novak to check with Armitage, or told someone to tell Novak and that someone mentioned that the information came from Bush's office. Maybe I'm reading too much into this Novak certainty about Bush's knowledge, but it doesn't fit the facts as we suppose them and that raises questions.

Damn - just when I was completely convinced it was Armitage, you remind me of the Novak quote about "go bug Bush". That certainly points more to Rove or Ari. Also, excuse my embarrassing ignorance, but is it a hard cold fact that one of Novak's sources was Rove? But we're sure that Novak was referring to the other one in his (extremely odd) "go ask Bush" comment? My brain is really starting to turn to mush here.

I don't think we can forget the Rove-Novak leak from Bush the Father's 1992 election, when Rove leaked information to Novak. The precedent for further Rove-Novak mischief is there. Maybe Novak got information about Plame from Rove on more than one occasion (as you suspect it seems), not just the leak instance we know about from the Fitzgerald-Libby documents, and that additional Rove-leaked info was much more detailed than what we know about. I somehow feel either Rove (or possibly even Bush himself) is at the heart of this leak as far as the damaging part is concerned.

On a separate note, my above praise of your summary was too restrained. It is an excellent summary. Thanks for the time you put into bringing it together.

Yes, Rove has admitted to confirming Novak's Plame leak. My argument here is that he did more than confirm the story, he gave more specifics, details about what he wanted Novak to print, and the crucial (for an IIPA conviction) details of Plame's name and covert status.

RD

I think if there is more information, it comes from Libby. I have a very strong suspicion that Libby spoke with Novak in the week before the Wilson op-ed.

I'd still like to have the list of those present at the Jume 19, 2003, party for the 50th anniversary of Novak's column that was held at the Armory. We know Rove was there bnecause of that famous photo with Rove wearing a buttom that says "I'm a Source not a Target," but I'd like to know if Armitage, Woodward, Libby, Pincus, and a few others were present.

Fact Check reports for June 19, 2003: The New Republic publishes “The Selling of the Iraq War: the First Casualty”. The article mentions an unnamed ambassador (Wilson) was sent to Niger per the request of the Vice President’s office delivered via the CIA. The article quotes the unnamed ambassador as saying the administration “knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie.” The article also accuses the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence community regarding pre-war intelligence.

I have a feeling that some of the key players (in addition to Novak and Rove) were at the Novak party that night of June 19, 2003, and probably talking about the New Republic article that was released that day, and probably about Joe and Valerie Wilson.

Buried in a piece by Adam Nagourney of the NYT about Republican sentiment at their Southern Convention this weekend were these two grafs:

Some senior Republicans with ties to the White House, who asked for anonymity because they did not want to be identified describing internal White House deliberations, said there was a widespread feeling here that Mr. Bush would be well served to bring in new advisers, either replacing Andrew H. Card Jr., his chief of staff, or Karl Rove, his senior political adviser.

But one Republican with close ties to the White House said the investigation of Mr. Rove's role in leaking the name of a C.I.A. operative was making it nearly impossible to make any changes until it was resolved.

Why? If you've got an infected tooth in your mouth, isn't it better to pull the thing out? Is Rove blackmailing the president? Or the veep?

Garrett, I can't remember where I found the reference to the date June 19 for Novak's anniversary party. I did a Google search last year when the Fitzgerald probe was beginning to heat up. There used to be several references but they seem to have disappeared and I can't find any reference to the party now. I'm pretty sure about the June 19, 2003 date, though.

June 19, 2003 was a busy day for Niger and related information. In addition to The New Republic article, Walpole was testifying behind closed doors to the Senate Intelligence Committee about Niger and Wilson's trip, and Libby was telling Edelman that he needed to use a secure telephone to talk about Plame/Wilson. So, it's resonable to assume that those who attended the Novak 40th anniversary party at Washington's Army Navy Club (note the factual corrections about which anniversary and location of the party). Another piece of related information is a statement that Rove (or perhaps Luskin for Rove) made saying that Rove first heard about Plame/Wilson at a Washington social event, not in the White House. Rove (or Luskin for Rove) also said he first heard about Plame/Wilson from Libby. I wonder if Rove heard about Plame/Wilson from Libby at the Novak party? Could this be what Rove's lawyer told Fitzgerald in that last-minute meeting before the Libby indictment that kept Rove from being indicted? I know, it's all speculation, but I believe the June 19 party may tie a lot of things together.

Between typographical and other considerations, at this point I think there can be almost no doubt that Armitage was Woodward's source. I am less clear on whether he is also Novak's source; though I incline that way, I am very tempted to think Fleischer was Novak's source. I really really want to see precisely what Libby's lawyers said at the Feb. 24 hearing about that source.

As for what Rove actually said to Novak, it is interesting that there is this ongoing (as far as I can tell) ambiguity, complete with contradictory reports, about whether Rove and Novak talked on July 8 or July 9. We know from Wilson's friend that on July 8 Novak could already name Wilson's wife by first name at least. If Rove spoke to Novak on July 9, then obviously Novak didn't get the name from Rove -- and the standard claim seems to be that Rove learned her name from Novak during that conversation. As for other possibilities: it seems clear that Novak could have gotten her name from Fleischer on July 8; but of course by July 8 Armitage could well have learned her name even if he didn't know it from the INR memo or elsewhere back near the beginning or middle of June.

As for this --

But one Republican with close ties to the White House said the investigation of Mr. Rove's role in leaking the name of a C.I.A. operative was making it nearly impossible to make any changes until it was resolved. --

there are, it seems to me, two more or less contradictory possible explanations. One -- the one that occurred to me immediately -- is that if Rove resigns before it is really clear that he is in the clear in the CIA leak investigation, his resignation will inevitably be seen in that light, and he knows about and wants to avoid that appearance. But the other interpretation is that the intention is to replace Card with Rove, and you don't want to make someone Chief of Staff shortly before, perhaps even immediately before, that person is indicted.

Like you, I hold out the distinct possibility that Fleischer is Novak's first source (which would explain why Rove thinks Bush knows his source, and would tie everything up really nice and neat). For the purposes of this post, of course, I was working with an Armitage only scenario.

Also, I probably meant "deep background" for Armitage's leak to Novak. But the same could hold for Ari. In any case, recall that Fitzgerald went to great lengths to define "background" and "deep background" in one of his recent rulings. Which makes it more likely he did so because it was central to his case, to his not charging Ari or Armitage for their leaking.

One more point--about the names. Valerie was the part that was available (recall Plame's CIA-mates knew her as Valerie P). It's the Plame and the covert status that is important. Which means in any case it may post-date Novak's first source.

ew - The main thing that makes me doubt that anyone but Armitage could be Novak's first source is the fact that paragraph 43 of Fitzgerald's 2-26-06 affidavit refers to the source(s) as the one significant piece of information Libby is not being told.

The point about deep background - implying no effort to get a reporter to publish, right? - is interesting as an account of lack of motive for charging Espionage Act or especially IIPA violations.

As for Novak's access to the name and covert status, one thing worth considering is that Fitzgerald appears to credit Novak's brief published accounts of his contact with his sources. (I am assuming that Fitzgerald would not refer Libby's team to those published accounts if he believed them significantly false.) And I'm not confident that that leaves room for Rove blowing Plame's cover with Novak, though he (or the CIA) could indeed have given Novak her name. As a sidenote, the way Fitzgerald refers to Novak's published accounts in his 2-16 affidavit probably means that he is not investigating a big cover-up that involved Novak in fall 2003 anymore.

I am increasingly beginning to wonder whether Armitage might not be 1 - and on September 27 2003 or so performed an extremely deft move that at once distracted attention from his own role by focusing it on the White House and seriously outratfucked the master ratfuckers. I think I am in the minority in thinking that Armitage is in trouble for not having testified honestly about leaking to Woodward, so perhaps I am inclined to thinking he is in more trouble than he really is.

One last point: remember Powell on Larry King shortly before the indictment of Libby, very emphatically and even oddly (especially given the context) insisting that Wilson's wife was not named in the INR memo. That suggests to me either that Powell was unaware of Armitage's role, which I doubt, or was confident that Armitage did not give Novak or anyone else her name, gained some other way.

Jim E. - I saw that about Bradlee pointing to Armitage in Vanity Fair, though I can't figure out how having "heard about an e-mail that was sent that had a lot of unprintable language in it" is supposed to count as evidence. What email? When? About what?

It's amazing that Vanity Fair could publish an article as long as they have that breaks as little news and skates as superficially over the important press-and-government issues raised by the whole affair as that article does. Despite its occasional gesture toward complexity, it's also a huge unconvincing effort to vindicate Miller written by an acknowledged friend and ally of hers.

As far as I can see, aside from additional suggestions that Armitage is Woodward's source, there are only two pieces of news. One is that Pincus didn't even know that Joe Wilson was married until Richard Leiby told him about the family as they were preparing their July 6 2003 article on Wilson (and though Vanity Fair doesn't tell us, this almost certainly means that Pincus learned Wilson was married no earlier than July 3, since that seems to be the date Leiby went to the Wilsons' house to interview Wilson, met his wife, and chatted (with Wilson, I think) about their shared experience of parenting twins).

The other piece of news is that Miller reports a conversation from summer 2004 (I think) with Times in-house counsel George Freeman:

"I said, 'George, i think we are going to have a problem,'" Miller recalled. "I knew Valerie Plame's name. I knew who she was. I talked to many people in the government about her. He said, 'Before Novak's article?' And I said, 'Before and after.' . . ."

Many people in the government.

The one other item of interest is that Woodward says he though he might be mentioned in the indictment, which jibes with some of what ew has been saying, and which suggests that basically Woodward went to Downie because he learned something that made him think he was going to have his cover blown in the indictment, which would be a mighty surprise to his editor at the Post, no?

The point about deep background - implying no effort to get a reporter to publish, right? - is interesting as an account of lack of motive for charging Espionage Act or especially IIPA violations.

Yup. Deep as opposed to just background, implying that you don't publish the contents of the conversation at all. I could see Armitage offering that to Novak, no problem. And if Novak published anyway, it would pretty much clear Armitage of intent to leak.

As a sidenote, the way Fitzgerald refers to Novak's published accounts in his 2-16 affidavit probably means that he is not investigating a big cover-up that involved Novak in fall 2003 anymore.

Why do you say that?

I am increasingly beginning to wonder whether Armitage might not be 1

I've been thinking the same thing for a while. Much more his MO than Powells. And frankly, more his MO than Fleischer, who I believe has to be the other candidate at this point. But it would also make sense if Armitage got a sense that he was being set up by these guys, sending all these people to confirm sensitive information--it'd explain how he got the "6" number--counting the number of people who call HIM for comment (setting Armitage up fits THEIR MO, since Armitage is kind of their pet attackee). So he pre-empted that with the WaPo link. I'd like to see if Armitage has leaked to Allen before (it pretty much has to be Allen, since he's the only commonality with the second SAO article later in October).

Haven't read the VF article yet, but we pretty much knew this:

Many people in the government.

Since Judy said she kept reporting on the story after Juune Libby meeting. I've actually got a half-written post on the way it looks like Libby was going to use journalist testimony. It seemed like he was leaving Judy pretty much alone. Which makes sense to me--because if you forced her to tell her sources, the conspiracy would become crystal clear. But Judy is the most likely journalist to be able to support the "everyone" was talking about Plame.

I'm still wondering, btw, how Fitz knew that Judy's June 23 meeting with Libby was about Plame (since he wouldn't know that from the sign-in log). Since you refuted my Judy in June theory, it makes it less likely (though still possible) that someone at NYT told Fitzgerald Judy was working on this earlier. But perhaps someone else she talked to tipped Fitz that Judy knew of Plame by June 23?

I'm going register my objection to the developing consensus that Armitage was either Woodward's or Novak's source. There is just no evidence whatsoever that it is true. The typographical evidence is suggestive, but nowhere near definitive. There are a couple of points that I think folks are forgetting. Grossmann was supposedly tasked with responding to Libby's request (in late May 2003) about Wilson's trip because Powell and Armitage were out of the country. Well, you can go look up both Powell's and Armitage's travel schedule on the State Department web site. Armitage didn't do any official travel in late May. If he was out of the country, it must have been on vacation (because he had no public appearances either). In any event, I think it almost certain that Grossmann (who knew Wilson well, perhaps as far back as college, but certainly professionally) would have kept at least Armitage informed of his dealings with the OVP. Armitage, who everyone acknowledges as a very dangerous bureaucratic infighter, would have immediately known what was going on. In this case, State and the CIA shared a common interest both in protecting the Wilsons and highlighting the responsibility of the Cheney cabal for the WMD disaster. Wilson was most certainly working on the behalf of the government careerists in this fight. I just don't see any advantage for Armitage in telling either Woodward or Novak about Valerie Plame Wilson. More importantly, I cannot imagine why, if he was Woodward's source, he would have hidden that from Fitzgerald all this time.

Because Fitzgerald effectively endorses Novak's account as accurate as far as it goes, and even though it doesn't go very far, I don't see how that account, if true, can be squared with a major cover-up involving Novak.

You offer a much more charitable interpretation of Armitage as 1 than I do, and a beautiful account of how he would know (the reporters called him for confirmation, telling him who sent them to him). Given what we know, however, I suspect even if you're right, 1x2x6 is a flop, because I suspect we have to be talking about Armitage being called by reporters after Plame's cover was blown, as the pushback narrative from the White House suggested long ago. Fitzgerald has told us he only knows about the gang of five knowing about Plame before Novak's column (and four who heard in the week between Wilson and Novak), and there's no way Armitage wouldn't spill all he knows when he went in for his sheepish at best talk with Fitzgerald about his leak to Woodward.

In any case, it seems to me either Fitzgerald has still not succeeded at getting to the bottom of 1x2x6, which I doubt, or there's not much there.

I took the news from Vanity Fair to be that Miller talked to many government people about Plame, not just a couple of others (at most) beside Libby.

As for Fitzgerald's detective work on June 23, I wonder whether he might have just made Miller nervous enough about what he knew about the substance of that meeting to enable her to find her notes while she was on the phone with her lawyer and looking for something else (evidence about the phone calls on July 12, I believe). But it will be much more interesting if Fitzgerald knows from one of her other sources whom she has not claimed not to remember that she knew about Plame that early.

Grossman was tasked to do the WH briefing, not to reply to Libby's response. It's the June 11 or 12 briefing that Grossman did in Armitage's and Powell's absence.

And the whole substance of this post is that there is a scenario wherein Armitage revealed Plame's relationship to Wilson (note, there's a big difference between this and revealing she's a NOC) as part of playing defense, precisely because he IS a bureaucratic fighter.

Jeff

While I think it unlikely, I do think it's possible the parens after "albeit declining to name his sources" in paragraph 39 includes some caveat about Novak's truthfulness (rather than the names Rove and Armitage, or Rove and Fleischer).

I guess I need to go back and review what Rove's leakers have said and what Novak has said. Because I'm not sure Novak ever specified where he learned Plame's name or where he learned she was covert--he couldn't, or his October 1, 2003 column would be bunk. But remember, Carville chased him off CNN by threatening to ask him about Plame/Flame in the Who's Who, so I'm fairly certain there are substantial aspects of that story that are false.

I agree that the 1X2X6 can't be absolutely true. That is, they can't have included Plame's identity in all of those. But what if Armitage or whoever included people like Dickerson, who were walked up to the leak (though, of course that wasn't Libby). Though, Kessler is the State reporter for WaPo, so it's possible he was sent to Armitage but he never learned Plame's identity. And it would explain why Kessler is still in all of these filings. Judy, Novak, Kessler, Pincus, Cooper, and maybe Mitchell??

One more thing. Assuming Armitage is Mr. X, I also assume he's not Pincus' Mr. X. Are we back to Cathie Martin for Pincus' source? Remember he was very careful to caveat the sex of his source, he was using "he" only for convenience.

And finally, I gotta say I like the notion of an Armitage email with unprintable language floating around. It might support my notion that Armitage realized he had been set up. He may have kept the Woodward news quiet because it ruined his narrative about being set up.

Wow EW, just as I was about to ask you about the new (to me) reference to the use of "Flame" again, I refreshed and bingo you're there with it.
So, what about the "Flame", that's such a strange and certain clue to somebody's actions, probably just Judy Miller, but way back when I asked you about that before, you said there were two references to it, (I didn't want to bug you to explain the second), and now this seems to be A third? Carville?How'd he know? Pillowtalk? Any signifigance there yet?
Wasn't it Grossman who introduced Wilson to Valerie Plame in or somehow coincident with their posting in Turkey?
God I love to make my brain grind thru this stuff and pretend to keep up with you, however do you do it? It's mental crack for me, Thanks!

I've reread Novak's infamous column for the gazillionth time, and I think it supports what you speculate, EW. I don't remember who, but I saw a comment somewhere asking why Novak wrote so highly of Wilson, and then proceeds to spill the beans on his wife. It's interesting that EW's scenario posits exactly that, Armitage speaking about Wilson's wife as a way to reinforce Wilson's bona fides, rather than to discredit them. I think it likely that Armitage was at least on background for some of the column's information, and may have switched to deep background for the "Wilson's wife" part, but Novak goes on to claim, oops I forgot because I heard essentially the same story from Karl, and he was definitely on background.

And Novak was sneaky and lumps in his statement with Rove's malicious leak ("...his wife, Valerie Plame is an Agency operative on [WMD]") so as to make people think that his initial source also told him that.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Rove told him the "Wilson's wife suggested him" bit on background, then switched to deep background for "and she's a covert operative for WMD at the CIA"

I also think Libby was on deep background for this column as well, if you read the first two grafs, it's almost word for word what the cabal would like people to know. Or Novak's got other sources at CIA that were willing to talk.

I'm almost 100% sold on this except for the "Bush would know" part and the fact that I can't believe Armitage was stupid enough to be set up like this, especially after Rove and Libby sent numerous reporters his way. Unless this was something that only became clear in hindsight.

I need to validate this by looking at the cahce (not sure if they're still there because Town Hall has redone their archives). But as I understand it, when Novak's October 1 column first came out, wherein he said, "Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry," he used the word Flame, not Plame. Which would be very significant because 1) the Who's Who entry says Plame, not Flame and 2) this is the period when BushCo were trying to make sure B&J was good and ruined.

If I'm right, and this is what Carville was after, he had learned Flame was some kind of covert name for Plame, and knew enough to challenge Novak on this assertion. Before Novak stormed off, that is.

Her name, Valerie Flame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's Who's Who in America entry.

Now, I'd be interested to learn how this gets syndicated. Does Novak submit to Human Events first, then it gets syndicated at Town Hall? Or vice versa (which I suspect). In any case, thought, it strikes me as unlikely that an article would be spell checked after syndication, thereby swtiching Plame to Flame by mistake.

Human Events copyright is October 6, 5 days after the Town Hall copy. In the interim, Novak published this Town Hall article revealing Plame listed B&J as her employer for a 1999 political donation. And also on October 4, an SAO leaked to Pincus and Allen that Plame had listed B&J on her W-2.

My theory has always been that once BushCo realized Tenet hadn't stopped the investigation into the leak, they wanted to punish CIA by blowing B&J--and Plame's covert name, Flame--for good. So while I'm not sure if the original Town Hall article said Flame, it may be they added it to be particularly punitive.

Because I'm not sure Novak ever specified where he learned Plame's name or where he learned she was covert

True, and he never actually claimed what is obviously not the case - that he learned her name from Who's Who. He basically just says he could have. But we pretty much know he didn't. And looking carefully at Novak's October 1, 2003 column, it's true that it could have been Rove who spilled the requisite beans, her name and covert status. Novak says, "I hear Valerie, Wilson's wife, set up his trip." Rove: "Yeah, I heard that too. [Which is all we get from Novak, but then:] Now that you know, you might as well know that her real name as an undercover operative is Valerie Plame, and sometimes Flame. I hate those two, they're Democrats." Or whatever. If the conversation happened on July 8, it's even possible that Novak didn't even know her first name, which he used with Wilson's friend on the street. So that's all still possible. As is a coverup.

The suggestion about reporters like Kessler and Dickinson being put on the trail and being part of 6, without actually getting the leak, is interesting. Though if Armitage were 1, it would be odd that he would not tell them, not hear it from them and yet include them as part of 6. Unless Libby is right in his recollection about Kessler and Kessler is wrong, which would be pretty laughable.

none of the june scenarios accounts for the March 9th meeting, which we know was focused on "Wilson". anybody who claims that the Whitehouse learned about Wilson in June is an idiot, so why bother parsing anything else the person wrote ???

Armitage could have known Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson long before bush was elected

and Armitage could be an unwitting stooge in this case by accidentally and unknowingly outing Plame to Woodward. Since Woodward was retired from Naval Intel, Armitage may have made a slight slip in a conversation with Woodward BEFORE or outside of "the Plot Against Wilson"

Armitage could be an accidental leaker whose existence is being used by libby's defense

libby or somebody within WHIG might have known about Armitage's slip, and used this knowledge as a part of the plot

Both Armitage and Elliott Abrams were involved in signing the PNAC letter to President Clinton in 1998 outlining what they saw as urgency in dealing with WMDs in Iraq. Both had also been involved with Iran-Contra. At the time of the Plame leak, Abrams was Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs, which probably includes Niger. In his book, Joe Wilson mentioned Rove, Libby, and Abrams as possible leakers. So far, Wilson is two for three. Is there a possible conduit from Abrams to Armitage to Woodward and Novak that would make any sense?

I think the bit about Libby coaching Novak after getting tipped by Woodward is needlessly complicated - Libby knew first hand that Grossman at State knew about Plame, so why not just tell Novak to ask around at State, and see where the chips fall?

In any case, I can't see Woodward disclosing Armitage to Libby - he had to know those two were on opposite sides.

As to Rove providing Novak with key details - Andrea Mitchell, on July 8, used "operatives" to describe the folks that sent Wilson; so did (IIRC) a Reuters reporter. Here's Mitchell:

MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it's not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

In any case, if you know (from watching Andrea Mitchell, or hearing her source) that Wilson was sent by covert operatives, and you know (or believe) that he was sent by his wife - well, complete the syllogism.

And Bill Harlow, CIA press flack, told Novak a bit about Plame.

Rove has plenty of cover on this.

As to the notion that Armitage leaked on background so he won't be indicted - that's also great news for Karl, who leaked on double secret background to Cooper.

And Pincus said that his (White House) source was trying to quash Wilson stories, not promote them.

A U.S. intelligence official said [Joseph] Wilson was sent to investigate the Niger reports by mid-level CIA officers, not by top-level Bush administration officials. There is no record of his report being flagged to top level officials, the intelligence official said.

"He is placing far greater significance on his visit than anyone in the U.S. government at the time it was made," the official said, referring to Wilson's New York Times article.

The source is "intell", not CIA, and the operatives were mid-level, but this looks like the same leak - why couldn't Novak get it, too (or read the news)?

You've heard the Cheney-Armitage story. But you had pneumonia and you don't remember now. But that's part of the source of my conviction that Armitage wouldn't do this without knowledge of the politics involved. Which is why the drudge (egads!) rumor of emails that couldn't be printed rings true.

I was thinking earlier about TM's Novak-performs-a-syllogism theory, which I used to think less persuasive than I do now. The neat trick about that theory, of course, is that it suggests no one leaked to Novak that Plame was an operative. The hilarious thing, if that's true, is that Novak dug a real and unnecessary hole for his pals in the White House with his laughable lie on October 1, 2003 (and repeated many times since) that he used "operative" as in "political operative." Under the syllogism theory, Novak was simply covering his own shame at having figured out that Plame was an operative all on his own and not refrained from publishing that fact - hence the hole for the White House was unnecessary. Our legal system is, allegedly, a guilt culture, not a shame culture, so there would have been only (more) journalistic shame for Novak and no legal troubles, right (just as there were no legal troubles for Corn a couple of days later when he performed a not dissimilar syllogism to figure out that Plame was covered or covert or whatever)? (Or is that wrong: could Novak reasonably worry that if he himself put together the syllogism and published it that he could get into legal trouble? See below.) But by lying so obviously on such a loaded matter, Novak made it look like he had something really bad to cover up - namely, the fact that one of his sources, presumably in the White House, deliberately blew Plame's cover as a covert operative to him. That created a real hole for the White House, coming right on top of 1x2x6, which is perhaps a whole nother story.

But I'm still not sure I really buy the syllogism theory. A post by Murray Waas back in July 2005 is good on Novak's role, and makes it sound like Novak continued to stand by the claim that he just made an error in referring to Plame as an operative when he spoke with investigators. If that's true, it is inconceivable except under two very different scenarios: Novak is lying to cover for the source who blew Plame's cover to him; or Novak actually feared that his publication of the results of the syllogism could get him into legal trouble. Otherwise, why not just tell the feds about the syllogism?

Waas also says this item of ambiguity:

Lending credence to those suspicions [of dastardly deeds and subsequent cover-up] was that a U.S. government official questioned by investigators said Novak specifically asked him whether Plame had some covert status with the CIA. The official told investigators that Novak appeared uncertain whether she was undercover or not. That account, on one hand, might lend credence to the claims by Rove and other Bush administration officials that they did not know Plame was a covert CIA officer. Conversely, however, the fact that Novak asked the question in the first place appeared to indicate that he might have indeed been told Plame was a covert operative, and was seeking confirmation of that fact.

That official is almost certainly Harlow.

What is true is that we do not know of a single instance where an administration official told a reporter that Plame was an operative, or covered or covert or whatever. My credo at the moment is that Libby knew, or very well suspected, that Plame was covert, since Cheney had told him that she worked at CPD, which is on the clandestine side of the Agency (or was, having been reorganized and replaced, I believe), and did not tell any reporters that. Rather he lied to Miller, his special target for leak and publication, on this topic, either in the hopes that she would herself perform a Novakian syllogism and similarly do the dirty work of the White House by publishing (and publishing in a much more prestigious way, really, than Novak) and/or in the hopes that she would just publish that Plame was CIA and sent Wilson, which would have been good enough for Libby's multiple purposes, after all. Much of the rest is comedy of errors, and probably lots of people (like Armitage and Rove) didn't know Plame was covered.

A quick side note: Due admiration for Murray Waas. If you read that blog post I referenced in my previous comment, and then read the followup American Prospect article from three days later, it is clear that Waas basically smoked out Rove's folks (and specifically Luskin) on Rove's contacts with Novak, and made that news, albeit by driving Luskin to tell the Times and the Post the Rovian version of the story to preempt the Waas rendition of the story. Luskin comes off as a real sleazebag, um, I mean just as effective as a publicist for Rove as he has been thus far as a legal advocate. Waas tells Luskin Tuesday night he is preparing a longer story on Rove's contacts with Novak and others, Luskin asks Waas to delay publication for a day or two while he decided what he wanted to say on the record about Rove-Novak for Waas' story. Waas evidently agrees, and so Luskin goes to the Times and the Post, presumably on Wednesday and/or Thursday, to get the more unilateral version of the story out through them on Friday. They unfortunately oblige, and Waas is screwed. Except he gets the write that story too.

So there is a new WaPo article up on the Vanity Fair claim about Bradlee floating Armitage as Woodward's source. It makes at least one and probably more of the players seem rather daft. But buried in the article is one of those classic WaPo retellings of older events that breaks significantly new news without noting that it is doing so. Here's tomorrow's account of what happened with Woodward back in October-November 2005:

In the course of writing a book on Bush, Woodward said, he had discovered mention of Plame in his notes just as the grand jury in the leak case was expiring last October. Woodward contacted prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald and later testified under oath about his conversations with the source, whom he has refused to name publicly.

Unless I am seriously mistaken, there are two major items about last fall's events that are news:

1. Woodward has not publicly stated before that he discovered mention of Plame in his notes for his new book. I guess this is supposed to be the major new discovery that prompted Woodward to go to Downie on October 24. How this claim is supposed to fit with Woodward's other claim that over the course of 2004-5 he went to his source twice to try to persuade him to let Woodward publish on the Plame info he got is unclear.

2. I don't believe we've heard the assertion (or the suggestion) that Woodward himself, and not his source, contacted Fitzgerald. Woodward's original published statement on his role in the investigation certainly portrays what happened quite differently, stating that he

was first contacted by Fitzgerald's office on Nov. 3 after one of these officials went to Fitzgerald to discuss an interview with me in mid-June 2003.

If the new account is accurate, one big question is when Woodward went to Fitzgerald. All indications remain that Woodward was prompted by the indictment and Fitzgerald's press conference to recognize that his source was the first official to disclose Plame's CIA employment. But it would still be interesting to know the actual chronology.

Oh yeah, the article also has some material custom-designed to drive Maguire's commenters crazy, indicating that Fitzgerald has shown no interest in Woodward and his source since Woodward testified last year.

I have always assumed his series of columns on Novak's testimony implied that Novak testified one way, then the investigators pressured him about obstruction (the evidence of the phone calls with Rove, the 180 on his earlier articles), and then he testified (more) honestly. In that scenario, the evidence of the obstruction would be what convinced Novak to talk.

But Waas' sources post-Fitzgerald ascession are not as good as his FBI-era investigation. Which means when he uses language like this:

Novak had claimed to the investigators that the Bush administration officials with whom he spoke did not identify Plame as a covert operative, and that use of the word "operative" was his formulation and not theirs, according to those familiar with Novak's accounts to the investigators.

It leaves the possibility that Novak testified a second time and reversed that assertion.

Also, keep in mind, there's still the Phelps and Royce article that contradicts Novak's October 1 column, saying they did search him out. So there is still plenty of evidence Novak was lying in October.

I'm still not buying the Armitage theory, but I have one comment to make on the curious new tidbit in the WaPo article. Am I being too cynical when I interpret that factoid this way?:

Woodward heard about Wilson's wife from someone he trusted and assumed was not part of some organized effort to out Plame. He claims he wanted to go tell Fitzgerald, but his source wouldn't release him. Now, I can't figure out why he would be so convinced that his source was innocent when his source when wouldn't let him testify, but maybe Woodward really is that naive. The problem for Woodward was that he discovered that he had notes showing that he planned to ask Libby about Plame. Libby's big defense is that he heard about Plame from reporters and before the indictment came out, Woodward has notes showing he planned to ask Libby about Plame in June. Woodward doesn't know for sure when Libby first heard about Plame and he's panicking. He goes to his source and says, I can't afford to get called by Libby's defense. I have to go to Fitzgerald now and come clean.

William - I think you're probably exactly right, and that clarifies something for me I was confused about: the key is that Woodward discovered that his notes in preparation for his conversation with Card and Libby contained a reference to Wilson's wife; I was assuming the notes Woodward found were his notes of his conversation with Armitage, which would make no sense. So Woodward's big takeaway from the indictment and press conference was not so much that he had talked to Armitage earlier, but that he was (therefore) in a position to be Libby's true Tim Russert.

I still wonder about whether Woodward went to Fitzgerald first, and when.

ew - I don't subscribe to the Vandehei poolboy theory they love over at fdl. Neither being a partisan citizen (if he is) as well as a reporter nor getting things wrong in the past is enough to distinguish his reporting from anyone else's, or single it out for anything other than the same critical review all the reporting should get.

As for Novak, there are definitely lies in the October 1 2003 column - crucially the lies, one overt one a hint, about why he used the word "operative" and where he did or could have gotten her name from. But by my reading of Waas (whose sources I think you accurately describe), I don't think Novak has significantly changed his story. When we see Tatel's opinion on Cooper and the underlying filings, I bet we'll see a strong circumsantial case made that Rove may very well have outed Plame as an operative to Cooper - though it turns out he didn't. There are lots of things that fit with the theory that Rove and Libby were determined to hide the Cooper conversation (above all, Rove's initial failure to mention it plus Libby's strange testimony that he brought up Plame with Cooper, thereby stifling evidence that Libby could not have been Cooper's first source), plus the suspicion that Novak got his information that Plame was undercover from Rove and both were lying about it, Novak transparently lying about his use of the word "operative" meant that it was reasonable to require Cooper's testimony about their conversation to see what Rove may have been hiding. But if Novak really flipped, there's not as much need for Cooper.

Hmm. I need to think about that. My first response is to say two things. First, wouldn't Fitz need more than Novak to undercut Rove's claims? Second, it seems like Fitz at a minimum wanted to find all the links to published stories of Plame. So he had to make sure he had Rove with Cooper.

ew - Yes, that's a lame formulation, I was in a rush to finish. The point is not that Fitzgerald wouldn't have gone after Cooper. My point should rather be that I suspect this is how things happened, and that we would have gotten an indictment of Rove on IIPA or Espionage charges if he had cooperation already from Novak ratting out Rove for having outed Plame as an undercover operative. If Novak copped to a massive coverup in fall 2003, Fitzgerald would have indicted Rove and whoever else. This obviously speaks not to whether such a coverup happened, and whether Rove blew Plame's cover with Novak, only to whether Novak has flipped. If there were a conspiracy to blow Plame's cover and a conspiracy to obstruct justice to cover it up and one of the conspirators had come clean, I would think the latter rather direct evidence plus the circumstantial evidence would be enough to go for the indictment.

... one thing worth considering is that Fitzgerald appears to credit Novak's brief published accounts of his contact with his sources.

Just to torment Jeff, I'll point out that in at least one of the various recent court documents, Fitzgerald "appears to credit" the 1x2x6 story, citing it as an example of whistleblowing that should be protected (as opposed to a leak that should be punished).

As a former Swopian with regard to 1x2x6, I'd like nothing more than to credit 1x2x6. But I think the most that can be said about Fitzgerald's 8-27-04 affidavit, which is what I assume you're talking about, is that there is something to 1x2x6, though what and how much is very hard to say. It is true that the characterization of 1 as a would-be whistleblower suggests Fitzgerald does not believe that 1 was merely covering his ass or screwing over his adversaries in the Bush administration. So I should probably withdraw that hypothesis.

Well, emptywheel, you were right and i was wrong: VandeHei was, seemingly, wrong. There's now a correction appended to that article from the other day:

Correction to This Article
A March 14 article incorrectly said that Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward contacted a federal prosecutor about his conversation with a government official about Valerie Plame. Woodward talked to the prosecutor only after the official went to the prosecutor, requested that Woodward speak to the prosecutor and released him from their reporter-source confidentiality agreement.

I emailed him through the Post's new fancy interactive system, but never heard back. I bet Woodward threw a fit when he saw that. I remain skeptical - how could VandeHei get such a basic fact like that wrong? -- but I guess that's that.

I still want to know if Woodward's rediscovery that his notes for his interview with Libby contained a reference to Wilson's wife was the thing that prompted him to go to Downie. Is that supposed to count as going into aggressive reporting mode, which is how he depicted the events leading to his big discovery?

obsessed - I still don't buy Vandehei as stenographer poolboy, and this certainly isn't evidence of anything other than that he made a standard reportial mistake. There's no reason to see any political motivation in it. It's one thing to say that all reporters have better sources in some areas than others, and to be aware of that, so that you know what perspective is most likely to be most heavily represented. But that's not stenography. It goes for all reporters: Vandehei, Pincus, Waas, you name it. A lot of the time the complaints just look like complaints about a story somebody doesn't like, as opposed to a story that is woefully irresponsible in its reporting.